Macaca + Ken Buck = Buckaca

POLS UPDATE: The video and story have now hit Politico, which is not at all good news for Buck. As we said in the comments below, the rationale for this comment isn’t really relevant — Buck said it, and now it’s going to be used against him. This one may hurt. A lot.

—–

In his last ditch attempt to shore up the votes of sexist assholes, Ken Buck let this one slip at a recent event:

Yes. You heard that correctly. When asked why Colorado Republicans should vote for him, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck told the crowd:

“…because I don’t wear high heels…”

If you’re like me, you can’t wait to hear how he explains the context surrounding this statement.

I would have thought it was funny if Jane Norton when asked the same question said something about Ken’s gray hair or that she was better looking or who knows what. Does that mean she discriminates against older people or less attractive people…NO. Lighten up.

I don’t think Ken Buck hates women. Guess what? It was probably a friendly crowd, and guess what? In friendly crowds, you make remarks like that.

It’s political hyperbole to insinuate that this comment reflects any underlining sexism on the part of Ken Buck. That means that you’re doing your job properly as a Norton supporter, but it really doesn’t matter. His remarks aren’t notable enough to make any big splash in this race.

Is it offensive? Yes. Was it a mistake? Yes. Does it mean Ken Buck is evil? No.

Frankly, I don’t like Norton or Buck. But this isn’t as ridiculous as you’re trying to make it.

Why Buck said this really won’t matter. He said it, and now it can (and likely will) be used against him in negative ads. Whether it was a simple slip of the tongue or something said as part of a running joke that day — it doesn’t make any difference. Note that we’re not arguing that the context shouldn’t make any difference, only that the damage has been done and there’s no putting this one back in the bottle.

Frankly, I wish that this is something that is powerful enough to be wielded against Buck in the general election. But it isn’t.

It’s just not a zinger enough of a quote for lit or television. Especially if there isn’t a women in the race. If Buck wins the primary, then you could potentially target Women Us with this kind of quote in a push-poll, but I really don’t think it’s television worthy. Unless, of course, he were running against a female candidate in the general.

I agree Pandora’s box has been opened, because it is deeper than a mere slip of the tongue. When a person subscribes to bigoted ideology, the slips – even in jest – are part of their genuine inner dialogue. A running joke? What kind of joke? I compare his slip to my comical-in-his-mind bigoted father. He dismisses his racist slurs as fair and resonable balance. Sound familiar? When I respond, “To what?”. He can only answer matter of factly, “You know?”. He doesn’t see himself as a racist, because he always follows with, “I can tell a black joke in a black bar, and everyone would laugh!” Aside from a clear generation gap that blacks and whites have their own bars, his statement begs the question,”Why would you want to?”. The point he tries to make is that he can’t possibly be a racist because someone not white – I’m certain Buck had women in his audience – would find him funny.

It’s a glimpse of Buck’s generational divide, which blames blacks, women, hippies, and the liberal media for ruining this Country. We’re now a Country filled with women who should be home taking care of kids – unless they’re Republicans – blacks that should be working the fields instead of illegal immigrants, liberal hippies that need to stop their whining and get a job, and the damn civil rights that gave them all a voice. It’s a generational vision to regress our society from moving forward, and bring it back to the ‘good ole days’. Buck’s slip was out-of-touch. Stupid is a stupid does, and Buck takes the cake.

It’s obvious he was trying to crack some sort of joke. (And I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Democratic Bennet-Hickenlooper supporter.)

I think Buck has lots of other bad stuff about him, but this is just a little bit silly. He was trying to point out that his opponent is always talking about how she’s going to kick Harry Reid in the shins with her high heels, yadda yadda yadda…

Nothing offensive, it’s just a balance issue. You ever wear high heels? I can’t get them down.

I cannot say it enough. If you examine the tone of Buck’s voice, he’s clearly referencing a comment made earlier in the speech. If you can pull up the full transcript, let me know. But my guess is someone said something about Jane Norton wearing high heels.

Were you at the event? Were you the videographer? If so, please let me know what was said before and after.

You’re the one who said

If you’re like me, you can’t wait to hear how he explains the context surrounding this statement.

to a comment about high heels that Norton made at a forum several weeks ago in Colorado Springs. (Sorry, I don’t have a link or citing handy.) That context may not make it ok, but certainly different. I mean, at least Buck has the “she started it” defense, although weeks late!

I guess the comment-without-the-whole-story event on the national scene today (Sherrod) has little transference of learning onto the Colorado Pols scene. Jack, you and a few others are aware, but lots of people in this thread are doing the Vilsack.

Buck and Norton have made plenty of other crazy, scary comments to attack. I found Buck’s obsession with “bullshit” more interesting. I think an occasional well-placed expletive is effective and refreshing, but as someone else commented, Buck sounded like a 9-year old.

Norton and Buck have been trading comic barbs on the gender issue. She was on with Caldara last week and Caldara said “Why should people vote for you and not Ken? What’s the difference?” or something, and she said “First of all, I’m a woman…” Caldara said “Really?” and she said. “No that was a joke but it didn’t go over so well.”

I don’t think this is a deal, mostly because the (really short) clip begs for context. Don’t go Breitbart on our asses! I mean did somebody in the crowd say something about voting for people in high heels? It sure seems like Buck was referencing something particular.

Listen to the the version that’s longer than 18 seconds where it’s clear he’s responding directly to Norton’s ads where she’s been basically calling him a pussy. Funny but I haven’t seen much outrage over that one on this blog but surely it must be sexist to question someone’s manhood, right?

If this is what passes for offensive these days with you guys, then take some time off. Read a book. Go for a walk. And lighten up.

Schaffer’s picture of parasailing was so powerful because it tied to his taking a lobbist trip there to whitewash the working conditions. Macaca worked well because it tied to Allen clearly being a racist.

I think they’ll try to use this, both Norton now and Bennetoff in the general. But I think it won’t be worth the effort.

With that said, it does have a slight impact today/tomorrow. So if Buck loses by a couple of hundred votes – then its impact was gigantic.

but, in the longer version, I don’t know who comes across worse. Buck with his lame attempts at humor or the crowd laughing as if this guy is really, really entertaining. Especially when he says the word bullshit. They find that hilarious every time. You’d think he was playing to a bunch of 9 year old boys. Maybe next time he should also mention farts.

throughout the campaign, she has been trying to use her sex because her brain has been MIA.

In Colorado springs, she was sure to let everyone know that she wears high heels. Talking to Jon Caldara last Friday, she pointed out that the crucial difference is that she’s a girl. Yesterday, at a Ch 4 debate, she again points out that she’s a girl.

Then she puts out ads telling Ken to “man up.”

Ken humorously comments about voting for him because he doesn’t wear high hills, and she gets her girdle in a bunch. She’s probably screaming enough to crack her Botox.

I think Norton has offended men everywhere, and offended a lot of women. There is a word for women who use sex to get what they want.

Marilou, I think you might be confusing Norton using her gender to promote her campaign with using “sex to get what she wants.” Norton isn’t using her biologically constructed anatomy — her sex — to imply that for some reason her two x-chromosomes make her better qualified for office. Rather, to me at least, it seems that her references to all of the trappings of her socially constructed gender — wearing skirts, high heels, and being considered a ‘girl’ — remind potential supporters that she has gone through what all women in powerful positions have gone through. Such statements are commonplace among candidates. All candidates want to impart to voters a personal narrative, and for female, minority, or GLBTQ candidates, a part of that story often consists of reminding voters that they got where they are today by overcoming the inherent difficulties with entering the power-struggle of politics from outside the white, heterosexual, male mainstream.

Thus, Norton making a statement about her ‘high-heels’ reminds voters that she will bring her experiences as a woman to office.

Buck’s comment, however, is nothing of the sort. It is deriding her for her gender, for her wearing the uncomfortable footwear that is a symbol of women’s station as an object of beauty for men to admire, rather than as an intellectual equal competitor for political office.

That said, like most other Democrats, I think that both Norton and Buck are dangerously-right wing Conservative crazies that are definitely not fit for Senate office. Nor do I think that there is any excuse for Norton’s appeal to traditional gender roles in her attack on Buck’s ‘manhood.’ However, I think that calling out sexism is important, and Buck shouldn’t be let off too easily for his statement, whatever the context, nor do I think that Norton should be faulted for pointing out the barriers and glass ceilings she has encountered in her career.

this story and this video hit MSNBC in it’s clipped version with talks of “sexism”! Some anchors put it in context of the back and forth with Norton and her “man enough” comments and some didn’t. One of the evening anchors did a full story that mentioned her bringing up her comment that voters should choose her because she’s a “girl” or that she brought up the “high heels” thing first.

I don’t know if he’s sexist or not. I do know that his comment, taken out of context, in this 24/7 news world, is going to hurt. The only thing that will help lessen the pain is that Norton has brought sex into it way before this camera was turned on.